Brainless liberals, heartless conservatives

My wife and I were watching the most recent Republican and Democratic presidential debates, and when we got to the Democratic debates, she asked me "why do the Republicans seem so much smarter?"

I had to explain to her that the Dems are usually just as smart, but because they rely on emotional reasoning, coupled with the liberal tendency to be subjective about morality and truth, they fail to use their reason in an intelligent manner. So while they MEAN well, they actually don’t have cogent, coherent, workable plans, and tend to discuss solutions at the level of practice, rather than principle, which makes for more heat than light.

I went on to explain that Republicans tend to rely on logic to the
point of being heartless, which is why they err on immigration. Also,
conservatives rely on "conserving" timeless principle, and in general,
refer to unchanging, objectively true morals and principles, which IS
smart, as long as they don’t do so to the point of being inflexible and
unable to address new situations. Relying on principle means that their foundational assumptions, when followed logically, lead to practical working solutions, not the absurdities that arise from many liberal assumptions about man, government, and religion.

Now, I know I am generalizing, and for sure, some Republican plans have been lame-brained, and some liberal ones have some merit. And to be honest, I am sure that liberal plans arise from their principles, but I suspect that their principles are suspect. As a general rule, I find these quotes to reflect some general truths about liberalism and conservatism:

18 Responses

No need for all the hot air, seeker. The reason Conservatives seems smarter to you is because you agree with them and disagree with Liberals. To me, Bush looks like one of the dumbest animals ever to walk on two legs while Gore is brainy to a fault. Also, Clinton and Obama seem light-years ahead of that hymn-singing hick Huckie-boy and Mr. Plastic, Romney – McCain is the best of the lot.

My wife is not as conservative as me, and she asked the question. But while I have admitted that Obama is smart, when he argues with fellow dems, he does not appear to be smart because he thinks and argues like a liberal, as I have described.
Of course, Bush does not seem intelligent, but he is not what I would call a conservative. And though Romney is plastic, when he argues classic conservatism, the wisdom of it seems blazingly obvious and smart. And Huck, despite his hick accent and manner, answers questions very smartly, even if not like an Al Gore.
And the well known aphorisms I provided exist, not because I made them up, but because they capture a reality in pithy form.

You are missing my point. They fail to think rationally because they have both (1) abandoned sound assumptions about the reality of objective truth and unchanging principles, and (2) rely on emotional reasoning instead of logical reasoning.
In fact, those who think that the gospel means we should have bigger government social programs, like many liberal Christians, are guilty of just this sort of thing – while they rightly identify compassion for the poor as a godly end, they abandon biblical assumptions and logic when proposing that the biblical means to such ends involve government, when a classical, balanced, logical biblical view teaches something else.

Hi Seeker:
You wrote:You are missing my point. They fail to think rationally because they have both (1) abandoned sound assumptions about the reality of objective truth and unchanging principles, and (2) rely on emotional reasoning instead of logical reasoning.
That's simply not true. Emotional reasoning? That'd be the argument that leaving our troops in harms way in Iraq is required to honor the soldiers who died there already, or the argument that people who dissented from the Republican/Cheney/Bush Iraq war were objectively pro-terrorist. Liberals have normal ideas of the reality of objective truth, there are true things and there are false things. That's why we don't agree with you conservatives; we think you are objectively wrong.In fact, those who think that the gospel means we should have bigger government social programs, like many liberal Christians, are guilty of just this sort of thing – while they rightly identify compassion for the poor as a godly end, they abandon biblical assumptions and logic when proposing that the biblical means to such ends involve government, when a classical, balanced, logical biblical view teaches something else.
We've been through this before: there is no biblical political economy. Conservatives who think the Bible supports capitalism and conservative economics are reading this into their interpretation of scripture. It's all spin. But there is nothing in the Bible that says that the unregulated free market produces economic justice, and nothing that says we cannot use the tool of government to rectify any unfairness the market does produce. The moral question of unregulated free markets is extra-biblical, and Christians who claim otherwise–on the left or the right–are misusing the Gospel.
your friend
Keith

From what I can tell, liberals really just don't believe that helping a person be his/her own person is more loving than handing a person all his/her needs (or wants) on a silver platter.
Just my opinion …

I;d say it depends on how we use them.
Does that mean, whether they agree with you or not? ;)
You cannot completely disregard the Bible when it comes to "political points," since much of Western law and culture is derived from it, but it should be used sparingly and only in certain situations (when dealing with public policy questions, for me as a Christian it should be my only certain guide).
I cannot expect Louis to appreciate or acknowledge as truth a reference to the Bible because he doesn't accept it as God's Word. It does no good in the debate and probably harms the integrity of God's Word more by dragging it into that situation.
To the economic issues, I do not think that the Bible supports supply-side economics or government hand-outs. It does not give us an outline on what policies make the best economic proposals. Christians should evaluate the proposals and policy issues in light of what Scripture teaches us, but just as with many other issues, there will be disagreements over the best way to live out our faith.
I believe, as seeker, that working to grow the economy through tax cuts and the free market is the best way to help everyone, including the poor. That decision is guided by my adherence to biblical principles, but I also understand why a Christian can look at the Bible and believe the best way is to use the government as a income redistribution tool. Those are the messy areas of living out our faith.

One interesting principle we can extract from the Bible is the command that we be "stewards of the Earth" (if I read it correctly). This is certainly the opposite of what mankind is currently doing. We think that we are masters of the Earth, and are therefore allowed to exploit it for our own purposes (I've heard xians making that argument, btw). This implies a humility towards our place in the universe and the world which is sorely lacking, both in secular and religious circles.
But, of course, humility isn't found much in religious circles.

there is no biblical political economy. Conservatives who think the Bible supports capitalism and conservative economics are reading this into their interpretation of scripture.
I think that is a half truth. There ARE biblical principles of finance and government in scripture, and these principles can and should be applied to business and government. While it does not specify capitalism, we can compare various economic systems and evaluate them in light of scripture – to see how much they conflict or agree with biblical principle.
So when I look at, for example, hand-out welfare, I see that it conflicts with many biblical principles, including:
– if a man is able to work but unwilling, he should not be fed
– parents are responsible for providing for their children
– fathers are responsible for protecting and providing for their families
– a person should be rewarded for their work with just pay
– unsecured loans are bad
And it goes on and on and on. So while scripture does not specify capitalism, we can evaluate how biblical various forms of capitalism, or communism, socialism, etc. are.
The bible is not silent on these issues as you seem to suppose.nothing that says we cannot use the tool of government to rectify any unfairness the market does produce.
I'll address this in a new post.

One interesting principle we can extract from the Bible is the command that we be "stewards of the Earth" (if I read it correctly). This is certainly the opposite of what mankind is currently doing. We think that we are masters of the Earth, and are therefore allowed to exploit it for our own purposes (I've heard xians making that argument, btw). This implies a humility towards our place in the universe and the world which is sorely lacking, both in secular and religious circles.
You are correct, Christians have not really done a good job of environmental stewardship, which is their fault. This is largely, imo, due to isolationist theology during the last 100 years, which was characterized by a rapture mentality – that is, "the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and Jesus is coming soon, and God's kingdom has nothing to do with this earthly one, so who cares what happens here?"
This led to Christians abandoning the culture, the arts, government, and the environment. Thank God for those like Francis Schaeffer, who reminded us that the Bible is not just authoritative and instructive for the inner life, but for all of life and mankind. From his writings and others, we now have articulated a biblical perspective on every possible discipline, including the environment.
Even worse, when xians abadoned developing and pursuing a biblical view of the environment, they ceded this to liberals who, unaided by a biblical world view, ended up with a type of environmentalism which was unbalanced to the point of being anti-human (cf. DDT), and in many cases, unscientific and driven by emotionalism.
This is why those like Newt Gingrich have been calling for a return to *scientific* environmentalism, and why evangelicals have been slow to accept environmental catastrophism panic (see Why the right opposes global warming).
But stewarship does not just require humility. It requires the courage to get the job done – that is, humility and boldness, the latter of which might be confused with arrogance.

Hi Seeker:
You listed these as biblical principles that we can use to evaluate a political economy. IMO they illustrate my point exactly; here's why:So when I look at, for example, hand-out welfare, I see that it conflicts with many biblical principles, including:
– if a man is able to work but unwilling, he should not be fed
So how do you feel about early retirement? It is not uncommon for a rich investor to retire early, when he could indeed work, but he receives enough return on his investments to be fed (very well). His unemployment is an expression of his will. So the question becomes: does he deserve to have received as much money as he did prior to retirement? The Bible gives us no basis for saying yes or no. That's a political question. A Christian could consistently say that the patterns of rewards our economic system provides right now is unjust, and that this system therefore violates the biblical principle you mentioned.
On the other hand, the Christian could consistent agree that we shouldn't give any welfare benefits to able bodied people who choose not to work, but say that since child rearing IS work, we shouldn't force single mothers to abandon their children to day care to work at a poorly paid job, that we should honor that work by providing welfare benefits for as long as they are needed. None of this "time limits on benefits and then leave the families to suffer from the rough edges of our free market" stuff.
For the record I don't know any mainstream center/left politicians who have EVER suggested that we use welfare to enable healthy adults to avoid working. You might claim that such is the result of our welfare system, but the bible doesn't provide any answers to such questions.– parents are responsible for providing for their children…
Which means this: given whatever system parents find themselves in, they are responsible for providing for the needs of their children. In a system where low wage jobs can barely meet expenses, and require a parent to leave her children unattended so that she can get to work, but where she could just draw welfare, the responsible thing for the mother to do would BE to get welfare. Right or wrong, the idea that providing for your children means participating in the job market doesn't come from the Bible.– fathers are responsible for protecting and providing for their families
– a person should be rewarded for their work with just pay
And this last part is exactly the question the Bible doesn't address–what counts as "just pay".– unsecured loans are bad
Secured by what? If you borrow money and use some bit of property as collateral, the degree to which you loan is "secured" depends on the future value the free marker will place on that property. There IS no such thing as a "secured" loan. But more to the point, I don't see how this principle has anything to do with welfare.
You say you can evaluate capitalism, socialism etc. based on these biblical principles, but the fact is your evaluation will depend NOT on the Bible but on your extra-biblical political opinions. And that is the point IMO. We do injustice to the Gospel of Christ when we try to imagine that it proposes a politics in the usual sense of the word. There IS a politics implied by the Gospel, but that politics is the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 25. How human-made institutions measure up is a matter of judgment, and faithful Christians can disagree on this matter. That's why I get so tired of the Christian Right: they too often seem to be reading "abolishing the IRS" and "closing the borders to those "illegals"–what an abominable term–from out of thin air. I expect I would be equally annoyed by some people on the Christian Left in places where they claim that only socialists can be true Christians. I just haven't encountered any of those folks around here.
your friend
Keith

So how do you feel about early retirement?
Well, don't make the mistake of taking one principle and trying to apply it in a vacuum. There are other principles covering investment and such. But retirement as we experience it today is not entirely biblical – we should have useful work until we expire or can no longer work – that's part of what makes life worth living. The leisure life is not biblical.In a system where low wage jobs can barely meet expenses, and require a parent to leave her children unattended so that she can get to work, but where she could just draw welfare, the responsible thing for the mother to do would BE to get welfare.
True, but if that is your best model, then I would say that you are being unbiblical. You are justifying the means with the end. A better model than welfare is to help provide better paying jobs. Again, we do not need to violate scriptural principle to fix wrongs.And this last part is exactly the question the Bible doesn't address–what counts as "just pay".
While the bible does not specify every practical implementation you could imagine, it does provide copious principles by which we can logically deduce plans that are congruent with biblical principle. While the bible doesn't exactly say what is "just," we can reasonably arrive at some plans using biblical ideas.There IS no such thing as a "secured" loan.
Um, I think you are at odds with reality on that one. While there are degrees of security, there is a differnce between loans that have collateral and those that don't. And some forms of collateral are more stable in their value than others. So what? It's still "secured" in some real sense, though NOTHING is entirely secure. This is reality, not just some pure ivory tower exercise.You say you can evaluate capitalism, socialism etc. based on these biblical principles, but the fact is your evaluation will depend NOT on the Bible but on your extra-biblical political opinions.
You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Because we must use reason and logic to deduce from biblical principle which systems are more congruent than others, you want to discard the whole exercise because there could be disagreement?
So if it's not specifically called out in the bible, we can not infer at all? That's an intellectual copout. Might as well not even argue for your social programs from the bible then.We do injustice to the Gospel of Christ when we try to imagine that it proposes a politics in the usual sense of the word.
I disagree. While we may do injustice to it by saying that it specifies only one type of government or economic policy, and make that a cardinal, central doctrine, it is totally appropriate to compare systems to biblical principle and evaluate them. To not do so is irresponsible, if not unChristian.
I think the serious error you are making is that you discard all such applications of biblical principle to politics and economics, or claim that your ideological opponents are relying on opinion rather than logical deduction from scripture, while with the other hand want to hold on to your pet interpretations as biblical.
But if you don't claim that your social programs are biblical, you are being consistent. But if you claim that, I will say that I think you have, for the sake of trying to keep the gospel pure and unsullied, refused to see the biblical wisdom for all of life, not just personal piety.

Hi Seeker:
I address some of your points, in somewhat random orderf:-)You say you can evaluate capitalism, socialism etc. based on these biblical principles, but the fact is your evaluation will depend NOT on the Bible but on your extra-biblical political opinions.You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Because we must use reason and logic to deduce from biblical principle which systems are more congruent than others, you want to discard the whole exercise because there could be disagreement?
I think you are missing my point here. My point is nearly everybody, left right or center agrees with those principles you cite from the bible. The disagreement lies elsewhere; it's either a disagreement about the effects of policy proposals or a deeper disagreement about what counts as a fair way to arrange society. Christians clearly HAVE to use reason and logic to help navigate those kinds of issues but it's a category error to say that the Gospel gives a way to settle the issue. A Christian who believes–as I do–that the present US economic arrangement is unjust, I vote accordingly. But I have no right to say that your different opinion is less Christian than mine.So if it's not specifically called out in the bible, we can not infer at all? That's an intellectual copout. Might as well not even argue for your social programs from the bible then.
IMO your first two sentences are red herringish, since I don't see that I suggested what you think I did. But I would endorse the policy you derived from those sentences–we shouldn't use the Bible to argue for our social programs. That's a misuse of scripture IMO.I think the serious error you are making is that you discard all such applications of biblical principle to politics and economics, or claim that your ideological opponents are relying on opinion rather than logical deduction from scripture, while with the other hand want to hold on to your pet interpretations as biblical.
Well, if I am in error, it's not the error you say. I claim that your deductions from scripture are not valid deductions, but rather owe to your political opinions. IMO you are the one who is trying to hold on to your pet political views as being biblical. I mentioned the example of early retirement as a illustration of this point, but since it seems to me you didn't get the point I was TRYING to make. let me try again. You wrote in response:Well, don't make the mistake of taking one principle and trying to apply it in a vacuum. There are other principles covering investment and such. But retirement as we experience it today is not entirely biblical – we should have useful work until we expire or can no longer work – that's part of what makes life worth living. The leisure life is not biblical.
I didn't say the person was engaging in the leisure life. He could be doing all kinds of useful things that would not be compensated for by the private market, the same as the welfare recipient could. But it is my suspicion that you would not consider him to be a free loader because you'd say he had a right to his profits, unlike the welfare recipient who has no right–you say–to his benefits. I am claiming the Bible doesn't say what kinds of things justify profits. In fact, I would challenge you to show Bible verses that show God endorses anything LIKE capitalism. I'll bet that whatever "principle of bible interpretation" your supporting passages depends on imply that slavery is justified.
You criticize my claim that the is no such thing as a "secured loan" but then you admit that no loan is perfectly secured. This means that when you borrow from somebody you cannot guarantee you'll be able to pay it back. I would assume that the principle then only requires you to take on loans (you believe) you'll be able to pay back. I'm not sure capitalism could function on that principle since entrepreneurs necessarily are risk takers, but I don't see how welfare has anything to do with this tangential discussion.
Anyway I hope I haven't come across hostile in this post. I am not thinking anything hostile at all right now (thanks be to God, sometimes I get worked up on political matters:-). But it seems to me that you are making the same mistake that a lot of Christians make. Let me give you an example of one of MY errors. Remember we had the debate some time ago about pacifism? I said that because (a) the Bible says we are to love our enemies and (b) it is impossible to love those who you are trying to kill, Biblical principles preclude participation in war. But I know that you and lots of other Christians agree with (a) but disagree with (b). The alleged truth of (b) cannot be derived from the Bible (nor can its falsehood), which means that it is something that consistent Christians could disagree about, it isn't something that FOLLOWS from the Gospel of Christ.
your friend
keith

My point is nearly everybody, left right or center agrees with those principles you cite from the bible.
I did not cite a comprehensive list, nor did I repeat the more detailed logical arguments in favor of specific application of biblical principle to economics. There are whole books on this. I understand what you are saying, that how we implement said principles is open to debate.
But this is the work of presuppositional apologetics – we need to put our presuppositions out front – and I believe that one can make a good, biblical case against big government social programs in favor of personal responsibility, family responsibility, church responsibility, and business responsibility before defaulting to big government.But it is my suspicion that you would not consider him to be a free loader because you'd say he had a right to his profits, unlike the welfare recipient who has no right–you say–to his benefits.
The rich man has the right to reap what he has sown, but if in laziness the poor man has sown nothing, then he has forfeited the future that the industrious man provided for. The industrious man who "learned from the ant" is not freeloading, he worked for his financial independence.
BTW, I am not against welfare per se, but I would want a more biblical model – one that takes into consideration the principles of personal and familial responsibility, thrift, industry, honesty, and other virtues. That's why work-fare was a vast improvement over the previous entitlement system which rewarded laziness, and having children out of wedlock.
Also, I would argue that large social programs are one of the LEAST effective, efficient, and just means of helping people – one estimate I read said that 70% of current welfare monies are spent on ADMINISTRATION, while 30% go to the recipients!I don't see how welfare has anything to do with this tangential discussion.
Only in that the bible has much to say about economics, including welfare and lending.it isn't something that FOLLOWS from the Gospel of Christ.
Well, this argument smacks of a current heresy which some are calling "Jesusanity." It basically posits that the words of Jesus in the gospels carry more weight than the rest of scripture, or that the Sermon on the Mount is somehow the totality of Christian teaching.
This heresy, promoted by such efforts as the Jesus Seminar, is what leads to such misunderstandings of scripture as the unbiblical theologies of pacifism, anti death-penalty, Christian socialism, acceptance of homosexuality as normal, and cultural isolationism, to mention a few.
Not only did Jesus acknowledge the authority and inspiration of the Old Testament, the NT includes more than the gospels. Additionally, the "gospel" of the Kingdom, while it may be the crown of the Christian message, is not the totality of the message. Jesus also said "go into the whole world and teach them to obey all that I have commanded you." I think that includes all of scripture, since Jesus also intimated that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth, and I presume that these other scriptural truths are to be taught as well.

Hi Seeker:
You wrote:But this is the work of presuppositional apologetics – we need to put our presuppositions out front – and I believe that one can make a good, biblical case against big government social programs in favor of personal responsibility, family responsibility, church responsibility, and business responsibility before defaulting to big government.
I would argue that it's not big government versus personal responsibility, family, church responsibility, and business responsibility. I'd say it's said responsibility within a system that could contain "big" government.The rich man has the right to reap what he has sown, but if in laziness the poor man has sown nothing, then he has forfeited the future that the industrious man provided for. The industrious man who "learned from the ant" is not freeloading, he worked for his financial independence.
Here you presuppose the validity of the system the rich man derived his wealth from. You suggest you could build a biblical case for the conservative political economics. In the past when I've heard people make such arguments, the arguments were a bit circular.
Also. I'd tell you I don't think you are right at all that private charity is more efficient than government social programs. Public health care (Medicare, the VA etc.) spend a much higher percentage of their revenues on health care than does the private health care system with its private insurance.Well, this argument smacks of a current heresy which some are calling "Jesusanity." It basically posits that the words of Jesus in the gospels carry more weight than the rest of scripture, or that the Sermon on the Mount is somehow the totality of Christian teaching.
Which group is authorized these days to declare an idea "heresy"? :-)
But I don't think it's a fair characterization anyway. I would say we should interpret scripture BY THE LIGHT of Jesus' teachings, what with Jesus being (as Paul said) the very image of the living God. I could just as easily suggest the political conservative view places insufficient weight on the Sermon on the Mount (some seem to ignore it altogther).
your friend
Keith